An 85 f/2 IS would be the one of this group I would want, but if it's an "STM", and not even an L...what if it still costs $1k? If it's not an L, would it really be worth $1k? Would it be worth over $1k (seems likely it would be $1199 or something)?? If it's not going to autofocus as fast as a USM lens, and I wouldn't be using it for video very much...would it be worth the high price they're likely to ask, to me? Or do I not matter? Haha, don't answer that!

To me, were I to very crudely ranking the focus systems, on a scale of 1-10:

8-10 = Ring USM (yes, some are blindingly fast, and others not so much)6 = Non-ring USM (like in the current 50 F/1.4)3 = STM1 = no designation at all, the squeaky noisy AF of the 50 F/1.8, the kit 18-55, etc.

But keep in mind that I am a still shooter, and STM is crap for most of us unless we are doing all-the-time-in-the-world-to-shoot photography like in the corny Nikon Df teaser videos. STM is a slowly focusing system that is better suited video AF for those that want/need it. I see STM as a nice little bonus for those who want to shoot video with AF on their Rebels, but it's not a best-in-class focusing system for still shooters at all.

This single distinction is why I don't use the super sharp 40mm pancake -- even the crummy 50 F/1.4 'hunt for a while' non-ring USM AF is faster to target than the pancake.

So I would bet the farm that any EF mount fast primes (L or non-L) will be proper ring USM... just like the other (24/28/35) refreshes.

This single distinction is why I don't use the super sharp 40mm pancake -- even the crummy 50 F/1.4 'hunt for a while' non-ring USM AF is faster to target than the pancake.

Your experience doesn't match mine. With a 6D, my 40mm focuses almost as quickly as my 24–105. It isn't instant—maybe a quarter second (and occasionally a bit longer if it is trying to focus on something near the minimum focus distance), but it is hardly objectionable. Either way, though, it's still a heck of a lot faster than the pre-USM lenses I've used, which verged on live view levels of slowness.

When I had the 40mm pancake, it was faster than most non-USM implementations and also faster than MicroUSM. But, for instance, the 35mm IS USM was significantly faster than the 40 STM.

Some also are not aware that there are two implementations of STM just like there were two implementations of USM - lets call them Micro STM and Screw STM. 18-135 uses Screw STM, 40mm pancake uses Micro STM. That is why the pancake is louder and slower focusing than the 18-135.

Screw STM is almost on par with Ring USM, though manual focusing must be done by wire which some dislike.

What makes these lenses so great are their high quality, simplicity and size. Photozone/DXOMARK etc all show in sharpness they often match the L primes at same aperture.

Many of us lug around big f/2.8 zoom lenses because quite simply f/4 doesn't cut it sometimes. It is rare, though, that ~f/2.8 + IS doesn't cut it. There may be special applications where this is the case, but with IS most of those situations are negated.

However, when this latest series of Canon primes are shot wide open, their sharpness and quality generally MATCH (and sometimes exceed) the 1.2-1.4 L prime lenses that cost 3x as much and weigh 3x as much. Only thing wide open is vingetting, but that is easily removed if it looks bad in a shot. Otherwise they are sharp across the frame, fast focusing, have real manual focusing, light, and well built. No they aren't weatherproofed, but hey if you want to stand out in the rain just use one of those big zooms with weatherproofing As an example, the 35mm f/2 IS USM for most people's uses would be overall superior to the 35mm f/1.4L - the f/2 IS actually has better bokeh quality and is lighter/smaller than the L. Obviously the f/2 IS does not have 1.4, but whether the 1.4 is worth the increased cost, increased weight, increased size and worse bokeh is the question; FWIW, DXOMARK ranks the 35mm f/2 IS above the 35mm f/1.4L.

So, when you have a few big f/2.8 L zooms, these new IS lenses are great to have as backups to the zooms or simply when you want a lightweight companion with you. They compliment the f/2.8 L zooms very well and in some cases exceed them. Thus, a great addition overall to your kit!! You could build and carry a whole kit of these for the price/size of one L prime, and probably get about the same results in image quality - very cool.

Given the quality exhibited by the IS lenses, is it really worth spending $5000 more on the L versions and carrying all that extra weight/size around? For some purposes, it may be worth having one of the L lenses, like maybe a nighttime star photographer might want a 24mm f/1.4 for the low coma at f/2.8 (though the 24-70 II zoom @ f/2.8 can do the same)... Or a portrait photographer may want the 85mm 1.2 for its speed... But for most applications I would think a kit of the IS lenses just makes a lot more sense - and if you pair with f/2.8 L zooms you have all bases covered IMO.

Interesting news, but I hope they are reasonably priced ... the pricing of the earlier non-L IS primes were far too expensive.

Given the L-grade sharpness, I think $500-600 range is fair and is probably what we will see.

I doubt that very much ... all the non-L primes that were released were sold at close to $800 ... it is just recently that they have been selling for about $500 to $600 range.

Yeah, there may be an initial gouging period, but luckily with the last set of IS lenses it was short lived. I mean more the "settled" price, as Canon lenses almost always appear to be overpriced at release. Though, the 28mm IS was on sale cheap many times since it was released likely due to it being an unpopular focal length.

The 20mm f2.8 really needs an update. And while they're at it a 17 or 18 mm prime would be nice too. The 17 TSE is great, but it's bulky, doesn't take filters, lacks AF, and is very expensive. Canon needs something better than second rate zooms in that range.

Dead-on. I'm patiently waiting for a top of the line wide-angle (zoom or prime, I'll consider everything) from Canon, not some "hey this is pretty good for the price" lens. I care not about IS, because I'm 90% on a tripod. Just make it sharp. Sharp enough to make me forget my Zeiss. I grit my teeth every time I haul out the 17-40.

An 85 f/2 IS would be the one of this group I would want, but if it's an "STM", and not even an L...what if it still costs $1k? If it's not an L, would it really be worth $1k? Would it be worth over $1k (seems likely it would be $1199 or something)?? If it's not going to autofocus as fast as a USM lens, and I wouldn't be using it for video very much...would it be worth the high price they're likely to ask, to me? Or do I not matter? Haha, don't answer that!

To me, were I to very crudely ranking the focus systems, on a scale of 1-10:

8-10 = Ring USM (yes, some are blindingly fast, and others not so much)6 = Non-ring USM (like in the current 50 F/1.4)3 = STM1 = no designation at all, the squeaky noisy AF of the 50 F/1.8, the kit 18-55, etc.

But keep in mind that I am a still shooter, and STM is crap for most of us unless we are doing all-the-time-in-the-world-to-shoot photography like in the corny Nikon Df teaser videos. STM is a slowly focusing system that is better suited video AF for those that want/need it. I see STM as a nice little bonus for those who want to shoot video with AF on their Rebels, but it's not a best-in-class focusing system for still shooters at all.

This single distinction is why I don't use the super sharp 40mm pancake -- even the crummy 50 F/1.4 'hunt for a while' non-ring USM AF is faster to target than the pancake.

So I would bet the farm that any EF mount fast primes (L or non-L) will be proper ring USM... just like the other (24/28/35) refreshes.

- A

I hope you are right, but if they aren't "L" lenses, isn't STM a likelihood?

An 85 f/2 IS would be the one of this group I would want, but if it's an "STM", and not even an L...what if it still costs $1k? If it's not an L, would it really be worth $1k? Would it be worth over $1k (seems likely it would be $1199 or something)?? If it's not going to autofocus as fast as a USM lens, and I wouldn't be using it for video very much...would it be worth the high price they're likely to ask, to me? Or do I not matter? Haha, don't answer that!

To me, were I to very crudely ranking the focus systems, on a scale of 1-10:

8-10 = Ring USM (yes, some are blindingly fast, and others not so much)6 = Non-ring USM (like in the current 50 F/1.4)3 = STM1 = no designation at all, the squeaky noisy AF of the 50 F/1.8, the kit 18-55, etc.

But keep in mind that I am a still shooter, and STM is crap for most of us unless we are doing all-the-time-in-the-world-to-shoot photography like in the corny Nikon Df teaser videos. STM is a slowly focusing system that is better suited video AF for those that want/need it. I see STM as a nice little bonus for those who want to shoot video with AF on their Rebels, but it's not a best-in-class focusing system for still shooters at all.

This single distinction is why I don't use the super sharp 40mm pancake -- even the crummy 50 F/1.4 'hunt for a while' non-ring USM AF is faster to target than the pancake.

So I would bet the farm that any EF mount fast primes (L or non-L) will be proper ring USM... just like the other (24/28/35) refreshes.

- A

I hope you are right, but if they aren't "L" lenses, isn't STM a likelihood?

Categorically: no. These lenses will be USM for certain -- again, just like the 24/28/35 refreshes.

You only lose a little speed and weather-sealing (in the case of the 24mm F/1.4L).

"Only" use weather sealing? Well, it obviously depends on what you shoot, but for me it makes *the* difference between usable and no ends of repair bills like I experienced with my old non-L macro

I have to admit I find it hilarious if Canon will go on reserving sealing (which would consist of some rubber rings and such - please correct my if I'm wrong) for "L" lenses, for a €600-€800 lens this should be a given - at least to a standard that covers light rain, but maybe reserves wartime usage in the tropical rainforest for the premium models.

You only lose a little speed and weather-sealing (in the case of the 24mm F/1.4L).

"Only" use weather sealing? Well, it obviously depends on what you shoot, but for me it makes *the* difference between usable and no ends of repair bills like I experienced with my old non-L macro

I have to admit I find it hilarious if Canon will go on reserving sealing (which would consist of some rubber rings and such - please correct my if I'm wrong) for "L" lenses, for a €600-€800 lens this should be a given - at least to a standard that covers light rain, but maybe reserves wartime usage in the tropical rainforest for the premium models.

IMHO, this is one of those times it's justified to demand a high price for a feature, in face of it's [I assume] low manufacturing cost.

I look at it like this: assume the new non-L primes have weather sealing. On the one hand you have non-L primes with IS, USM, good IQ, and weather resistant sealing, and on the other hand you have L primes with no IS, are just a stop or two faster (which today's ISO performance isn't as important as it used to be 15 years ago), and the question of why would a photographer pay an extra for the red ring.

So I think it makes sense L lenses would have an extra stop, better IQ, and that "neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these lenses from the reliable completion of their work" build, which includes weather sealing.

Just a thought, but how many people (especially unhappy 17-40mm or 16-35mm owners complaining of soft corners) would be please if Canon replaced the 20mm f/2.8 USM with a 20mm f/2.8 IS or 18mm f/2.8 IS for around the same street price as the 17-40mm (not initially, but eventually drift down like the 24/28/35mm IS primes)?

I know 20mm is much longer than 16mm or 17mm, but I'm sure a new IS prime would be incredible sharp, and still fairly small. Sounds like the perfect solution for video (widest stabilized lens in Canon EOS mount) and tripod-free nighttime landscape photography (theoretically handholdable at 0.8 sec). What does the CR community think of such a replacement?